Re: Web: updated Authors.itexi (issue 44720043)

[pkx166h]

On 2013/12/25 13:01:22, dak wrote:
> On 2013/12/25 12:51:02, J_lowe wrote:
> >

https://codereview.appspot.com/44720043/diff/20001/Documentation/included/authors.itexi
> > File Documentation/included/authors.itexi (right):
> >
> >

https://codereview.appspot.com/44720043/diff/20001/Documentation/included/authors.itexi#newcode193
> > Documentation/included/authors.itexi:193: Devon Schudy,
> > On 2013/12/25 12:24:10, dak wrote:
> > > Uh, Devon is not a core developer of 2.18 (and that's where we
need the
> > update):
> > > as far as I can tell his work is starting in 2.19.  Now I can
cherrypick
> this
> > > into 2.18 and do fixes to that list to dial it back to the 2.18
state.
> >
> > OK. I was only doing authors from 2.17.0 until 'now' (rather than
stopping at
> > when you branched dev/2.18).
> >
> > >
> > > There is another entry puzzling to me:
> >
> >

https://codereview.appspot.com/44720043/diff/20001/Documentation/included/authors.itexi#newcode196
> > Documentation/included/authors.itexi:196: Chong Yidong
> > On 2013/12/25 12:24:10, dak wrote:
> > > Chong Yidong is one of the two Emacs maintainers.  How has he made
it into
> our
> > > core developer list?
> >
> > Hmm..
> >
> > git log --since=25-08-2012 --pretty=medium | grep Author | grep
Chong
> >
> > That's how.
> >
> > --snip--
> >
> > commit 4d11b166f619770636a764ba629be107b8e0b81b
> > Author: David Kastrup <mailto:address@hidden>
> > Date:   Thu Dec 13 10:55:28 2012 +0100
> >
> >     Issue 3018: lilypond-mode.el: Replace use of obsoleted
compile-internal
> >
> >     In Emacs 24, compile-internal is no longer defined.  The
respective
> >     commit in the Emacs repository (from git mirror) shows:
> >
> >     commit 318ea0e29450b3c6e588287719e170e35a978cf7
> >     Author: Chong Yidong <mailto:address@hidden>
> >     Date:   Mon Sep 24 20:23:25 2012 +0800
> > ...
> >
> > --snip--
> >
> > Sorry. I often don't know one 'new' Dev from another and we have
been getting
> a
> > lot of checkins from Devs that don't have commit and/or push access.
> >
> > I did put this patch up for review though :")
> >
> >

https://codereview.appspot.com/44720043/diff/20001/Documentation/included/authors.itexi#newcode259
> > Documentation/included/authors.itexi:259: Alex Loomis,
> > On 2013/12/25 12:24:10, dak wrote:
> > > Again, I am of the impression that Alex Loomis would start in
2.19.  Is that
> > > correct?
> >
> > Well I did a quick scan in the users list and they are not always
using a
> > specific version and again technically most users are going to be
using 2.17
> (or
> > stable 2.16), but I have no feelings either way if you want to
remove him from
> > the 2.18 lists.
> >
> > >
> > > In general, I'd like to use those lists/macros in order to do the
2.18
> release
> > > message, so I need the 2.18 state.  Am I correct in assuming that
I'll get
> > that
> > > by removing the three mentioned names?
> >
> > Looks like it.
> >
> >
> > > Is then there anybody missing?
> >
> > Apart from any one who thinks I have missed someone from the
'support' list -
> > most of those that support are already here or are in the other core
lists as
> > far as I can tell.

> At any rate, it would seem like I cannot use the macros for everything
anyway
> since coreCurrent is missing a lot of core developers since they are
in
> developersCurrent, and developersCurrent is too verbose for the
release
> announcement.

> Huh.  Maybe I need to do a developersCurrentShort, but it is not clear
to me
> what the role of coreCurrent would be.  Maybe I should just forget
about working
> with this file.  But since it is referenced elsewhere in the docs, it
might make
> sense getting the 2.18 version right anyway.

Well the definitions are at the start of the file in the @ignore
section, but I've never really had to do much too much thinking on this.

The developersCurrent seems to be those that have done a 'ton of
programming' vs 'some'. Phil for instance is a good example of
'coreCurrent', i was moved in there by Julien (I think) but I don't do
any 'programming' but am seen more than just doc I guess.

With Trevor's suggestion to me about an 'emeritus' section moving
forward perhaps we could look at a restructure of the macros and what
they can be called. Otherwise Dev trumps core trumps everything else
(basically).

James

https://codereview.appspot.com/44720043/